Joint Statement by BHA, DNA, FFL, on Dock St Dumbo Building

In late August, The Brooklyn Paper and NY Post published stories about neighborhood groups joining together to fight against Two Trees Management building proposal on Dock Street in Dumbo. The joint statement was not published in either article. But the Dumbo Neighborhood Association just posted the statement on their website (click on more below to view the whole statement). The Brooklyn Heights Association, Dumbo Neighborhood Association, and Fulton Ferry Landing Association have joined together to oppose the project citing negative impact on the surrounding historic neighborhoods, being out of scale with adjacent structures, and failure to recognize its unique and significantly historic urban context. They have joined Council member David Yassky who also does not think the building is appropriate so close to the Brooklyn Bridge.

The Dumbo Neighborhood Association, Fulton Ferry Landing Association, and the Brooklyn Heights Association (collectively, the “Associations”) have joined together in opposition to the proposed development by Two Trees Management Corp. at the intersection of Water and Dock Streets, adjacent to the Brooklyn Bridge. Approximately three years ago, Two Trees Corp withdrew its application to build a similar high-rise building on this site after local elected officials and the Association raised an array of objections to the proposal. Despite the inclusion of a school and affordable housing units, the defects of this new project are essentially the same as those that resulted in the failure of the previous project. The proposed high-rise project will have a substantial negative impact on the surrounding historic neighborhoods, is completely out of scale with adjacent structures, and fails to recognize its unique and historically significant urban context. Moreover, it will profoundly diminish the views from and of the Brooklyn Bridge, one of our City’s – and, indeed, our nation’s – most important monuments to architecture and engineering.

The “Bowl”:

The site is positioned at a key transition zone between the five-story row house scale of the Fulton Ferry Landing Historic District to the west, its squat and massive Empire Store complex to the north, the assembly of DUMBO Gair Buildings to the east, and the Brooklyn Bridge Anchorage to the south from which springs the diagonal span of the bridge northwest to Manhattan. The view of this entire span must be protected. The area around the Brooklyn Bridge forms a vast spatial “bowl”, allowing residents and visitors from around the world views of and from this global landmark. This open urban space welcomes the bridge and its thousands of visitors to Brooklyn with open arms as it spans from Manhattan. Interrupting this, the proposed building sits completely within this “bowl”, cutting off views from the bridge of the waterfront and the Empire Stores, and views of the bridge from the DUMBO streets. The building would be substantially closer than any other building of its height to the bridge, in either Brooklyn or Manhattan, and would effectively eliminate the “bowl” completely on this side of the bridge. Meanwhile, for those moving along the bridge towards Manhattan, especially pedestrians and cyclists, the proposed building significantly diminishes panoramic views of the Manhattan skyline and Manhattan Bridge.

The “Density”:

The project as proposed does not reflect the low-density scale of this part of Dumbo and the Fulton Ferry neighborhood to the west. “The area proposed for rezoning is framed by the context of the four-to-six story buildings located at 64-72 Water Street and the Civil War era Empire Stores and Tobacco Warehouse in Brooklyn Bridge Park located directly across the street from the subject site. This area serves as a transition zone between the taller concrete industrial buildings found along Main Street to the 2-to-3 story buildings in Fulton Landing which are in character with an R6B contextual zoning designation”1
(1 Borough President Marty Markowitz’s Recommendation Report to the City Planning Commission regarding 38 Water Street, dated 7/1/04)

“The Size”:

Two Trees is requesting a number of modifications and exemptions to zoning requirements, all of which combine to create a building that is simply too tall and too large for this site.

a. Proposed Zoning Designation: This site should act as a transition from DUMBO to Fulton Ferry rather than a wall. We maintain, as we and many others did in connection with the developer’s prior proposal, that any new building on this immediate area should be no higher than 80′. Only by limiting the height of any building on this site to below the height of the Brooklyn Bridge span, can the sweeping views one enjoys of the river and Manhattan from the Brooklyn Bridge be preserved. The proposed R8 zoning without a contextual designation would enable the developer to build a structure that breaks the gradual transition from DUMBO to Fulton Ferry and impairs the viewscape from and of the bridge.

b. Proposed Floor Area Exemptions: The proposal seeks to exempt over 92,000 sq.ft. of space from the floor area calculations. While a public middle school is in great demand for our communities, we do not believe that this need should be met at the expense of the character of our neighborhoods or historic integrity of the bridge.

c. Proposed Modifications to Setback Requirements: The proposal seeks a complete exemption from setback requirements. We maintain that this site should act as a transition zone between DUMBO and Fulton Ferry. The required setbacks would maintain some level of integrity to street wall heights that characterize the low, historic buildings of Water Street and the Fulton Ferry Historic District.

d. Proposed Modifications to Rear Yard Requirements: The proposal requests that no rear yard be required. The intention of rear yard requirements is to maintain a minimum of light and air in our dense urban fabric. This already dense block would benefit greatly from compliance with these regulations.

e. Special Permission from DOT to Encroach on 70′ Bridge Limit: There is no substantive reason why, at such an early stage in the process, this issue cannot be solved architecturally rather than requiring DOT’s permission to compromise its regulation. We believe that any such compromise would not only be premature, but could also set a dangerous precedent for future development and for the security of the bridge.

To mitigate the above concerns, the Associations contend that any development at Water and Dock Streets must recognize the unique historic character and context of the area with a building (including HVAC and other equipment) that is no higher than 80′ in height, contributes to the character of both DUMBO & Fulton Ferry Landing, and has special consideration for the historic views from and of the Brooklyn Bridge.

I think I probably agree with almost everything in the joint statement above. But take a look at the illustrations above, will ya? Are those the roofs of the Empire Stores (seen through the bridge bracing) in the picture on the left? If so, it sure looks like the representation on the right shows the proposed building crossing Water Street. Really, the proposed building doesn’t just block views of the historic structures, it sits on top of them.

I think I probably agree with almost everything in the joint statement above. But take a look at the illustrations above, will ya? Are those the roofs of the Empire Stores (seen through the bridge bracing) in the picture on the left? If so, it sure looks like the representation on the right shows the proposed building crossing Water Street. Really, the proposed building doesn’t just block views of the historic structures, it sits on top of them.

Dear Supportive,
That is not the Empire Stores, but rather the short end of the Dock St Development bldg that lies ALONG Water street , perpendicular to the bridge. It was artistically shadowed, but it is part of the whole new building. (If you look at photo on left, you can see the Empire Stores are not visibly there in the photo – so what you see on the right is the rendering of the shorter part of the proposed structrure)

Dear Supportive,
That is not the Empire Stores, but rather the short end of the Dock St Development bldg that lies ALONG Water street , perpendicular to the bridge. It was artistically shadowed, but it is part of the whole new building. (If you look at photo on left, you can see the Empire Stores are not visibly there in the photo – so what you see on the right is the rendering of the shorter part of the proposed structrure)

I heard this week that no leases in 45 Main (a commercial office/studio building) are being renewed beyond 2014. Two Trees apparently intends to convert this building to condos in the future. Has anyone else heard / encountered this? Or is this old news and I’ve just been in the dark?

I heard this week that no leases in 45 Main (a commercial office/studio building) are being renewed beyond 2014. Two Trees apparently intends to convert this building to condos in the future. Has anyone else heard / encountered this? Or is this old news and I’ve just been in the dark?

Dumping commercial space is a no-brainer. Assuming the landmarking goes through, Walentas would be leaving money on the table if he kept the building commercial. Condos in a landmark district will go for much more than any rent, plus he’d drop the potential nuisance in complying with LPC requirements and restrictions. I would bet that within five years of landmarking there will be no commercial space within the proposed district other than ground floor space.

Dumping commercial space is a no-brainer. Assuming the landmarking goes through, Walentas would be leaving money on the table if he kept the building commercial. Condos in a landmark district will go for much more than any rent, plus he’d drop the potential nuisance in complying with LPC requirements and restrictions. I would bet that within five years of landmarking there will be no commercial space within the proposed district other than ground floor space.

Hmm…that’ll make it tough for places like Peas & Pickles, Front St Pizza to stay afloat considering the bulk of their sales come from the lunch/afternoon crowds that work in all the commercial buildings around Main/Front/Washington. Good luck with that!

Hmm…that’ll make it tough for places like Peas & Pickles, Front St Pizza to stay afloat considering the bulk of their sales come from the lunch/afternoon crowds that work in all the commercial buildings around Main/Front/Washington. Good luck with that!

Front St. Pizza does great business and it seems like it’s mainly local police, firemen, municipal / construction workers, etc along with a mix of locals. I can’t see them hurting if a lot of the commercial spaces disappear. Peas & Pickles, meh. I heart Foragers.

Front St. Pizza does great business and it seems like it’s mainly local police, firemen, municipal / construction workers, etc along with a mix of locals. I can’t see them hurting if a lot of the commercial spaces disappear. Peas & Pickles, meh. I heart Foragers.

True, Front St Pizza, et al will flourish with all the construction workers that will be here when the additional conversions happen. But after that…it’ll be a no-man’s-land during the day. Except perhaps for the nannies taking care of the kids, but I’m not sure how much pizza they eat.

True, Front St Pizza, et al will flourish with all the construction workers that will be here when the additional conversions happen. But after that…it’ll be a no-man’s-land during the day. Except perhaps for the nannies taking care of the kids, but I’m not sure how much pizza they eat.

Brooklyn Heights’ commercial strips only survive because of the lunch crowds from the courts and the couple office buildings on Court. Landmarking isn’t a panacaea. It won’t preserve artists’ lofts, it won’t preserve small, light industry that remains in DUMBO, it won’t restore the belgian brick/cobblestones to the streets.

It will increase property values, it will increase the number of residents, it will increase the amount of square feet converted to residential space from commercial. And it won’t do anything to prevent development of the remaining open spaces in the neighborhood.

Brooklyn Heights’ commercial strips only survive because of the lunch crowds from the courts and the couple office buildings on Court. Landmarking isn’t a panacaea. It won’t preserve artists’ lofts, it won’t preserve small, light industry that remains in DUMBO, it won’t restore the belgian brick/cobblestones to the streets.

It will increase property values, it will increase the number of residents, it will increase the amount of square feet converted to residential space from commercial. And it won’t do anything to prevent development of the remaining open spaces in the neighborhood.

I agree, landmarking would be a mixed bag. Personally I’m excited about all the existing and new businesses in the neighborhood, including many that have no retail/storefront presence but still add a lot to our culture – and I think it would be a significant loss if these businesses were pushed out in favor of residences.

At the same time, it seems that Walentas et al plan to do residential conversion on the buildings currently housing small non-retail businesses anyway, not sure landmarking will have much impact on this.

I agree, landmarking would be a mixed bag. Personally I’m excited about all the existing and new businesses in the neighborhood, including many that have no retail/storefront presence but still add a lot to our culture – and I think it would be a significant loss if these businesses were pushed out in favor of residences.

At the same time, it seems that Walentas et al plan to do residential conversion on the buildings currently housing small non-retail businesses anyway, not sure landmarking will have much impact on this.

I have been reading your comments, epc, on this thread and a couple of others on this site.
You claim to be neutral, you claim some naive ignorance about historic designation, yet your comments are insidiously negative against landmarking? So what’s your real agenda? Why all the rah rah for “zoning” changes instead of historic preservation? Do you work for Tom Montval Cohen, one neighborhood developer who is a big advocate of block by block re-zoning? That is the only way he got his monstrosity, The J Condo approved – or, one might say , to borrow your words, “The benefits of re-zoning”. Or are you Peter Foreman – a landlord who owns two buildings on jay Street who can’t stop talking about how zoning changes would be preferable to landmarking – yeah, preferable for HIM. Or do you work for our old friends, Two Trees? Wallentas & Son also employ the BID, or the more benign sounding “dumbo improvement district” ( aka BID) – if so you, epc, would be in the good company of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Stop putting fear and doubt into residents’ minds. landmarking was started to stop thoughtless demolition of special buildings and neighborhoods in order to preserve their unique sense of place – which dumbo still has, even if trains no longer run into the lobby of 55 Washington (another one of your hair brained examples) Landmarking is about adaptive RE-use, not trying to stop time. And all the nonsense you spout about not doing anything to preserve open space, not limiting development, not protecting commercial space and lofts is all total BULLS***. Who the hell is paying you?
People, go straight to the LPC website to get the real deal. Or check out The Historic Districts Council website. Or ask in the Brooklyn Historical Society. Or check out the info on the DNA website. Or look up more information on the Municiple Arts Society website.
This epc joker is a fraud. Don’t believe someone who is so clearly driven by a personal agenda. And that agenda, I guess, is greed.

I have been reading your comments, epc, on this thread and a couple of others on this site.
You claim to be neutral, you claim some naive ignorance about historic designation, yet your comments are insidiously negative against landmarking? So what’s your real agenda? Why all the rah rah for “zoning” changes instead of historic preservation? Do you work for Tom Montval Cohen, one neighborhood developer who is a big advocate of block by block re-zoning? That is the only way he got his monstrosity, The J Condo approved – or, one might say , to borrow your words, “The benefits of re-zoning”. Or are you Peter Foreman – a landlord who owns two buildings on jay Street who can’t stop talking about how zoning changes would be preferable to landmarking – yeah, preferable for HIM. Or do you work for our old friends, Two Trees? Wallentas & Son also employ the BID, or the more benign sounding “dumbo improvement district” ( aka BID) – if so you, epc, would be in the good company of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Stop putting fear and doubt into residents’ minds. landmarking was started to stop thoughtless demolition of special buildings and neighborhoods in order to preserve their unique sense of place – which dumbo still has, even if trains no longer run into the lobby of 55 Washington (another one of your hair brained examples) Landmarking is about adaptive RE-use, not trying to stop time. And all the nonsense you spout about not doing anything to preserve open space, not limiting development, not protecting commercial space and lofts is all total BULLS***. Who the hell is paying you?
People, go straight to the LPC website to get the real deal. Or check out The Historic Districts Council website. Or ask in the Brooklyn Historical Society. Or check out the info on the DNA website. Or look up more information on the Municiple Arts Society website.
This epc joker is a fraud. Don’t believe someone who is so clearly driven by a personal agenda. And that agenda, I guess, is greed.

Ooh, snap. Any joker with a web browser can find out my identity, it isn’t hard (I’ve been signing comments here, brownstoner, and at BrooklynHeights blog with my initials, and have been signing posts to Usenet and the web with them for decades). I have nothing to do with New York real estate. I own a condo in DUMBO and previously owned in Brooklyn Heights. I’ve lived in Brooklyn for seven years, and NYC for ten. So, who are you?

I don’t know where I stand on landmarking. I’m concerned that landmarking has become more about blocking development, instead of historic preservation. Until the recent real estate boom, there were maybe a dozen homes in North Brooklyn Heights which had had no maintenance for years and were left in disrepair. There’s no requirement to preserve or maintain anything in an landmark district, only the ability to block changes.

I’m concerned that landmark districts tend to push out commerical business by increasing costs. Again, in the North Heights recently we had a long time children’s clothing shop forced to close so that the owner could convert the storefront to an apartment. The landmark premium is so enticing that owners of commercial space would rather sit on it empty for years holding out for that whale of a tenant who’d pay Manhattan style rents, than cut the rent (look at the number of vacant spaces on Henry Street between Clark and Cranberry).

Landmarking pushes out lower income tenants, either through increasing rents, or through rental-to-condo conversions.

Aside from being snarky, I’ve reviewed my comments (btw, that must have taken some effort DDF) and don’t see where I was misleading.

Landmarking preserves the architecture of a designated area by integrating the LPC into the DOB permitting process. It does not aim to preserve the specific cultural makeup of an area. It does not protect tenants (commercial or residential) from evictions for the process of conversions. It doesn’t even necessarily prevent development, it just requires LPC approval. The LPC’s sense of what’s historically relevant can be seen by walking around Brooklyn Heights and seeing the “new” (since the 60s) developments. The train comment may have been snarky, but what does it mean to “preserve” the look of the 1900s building fronts when they’ve all been converted from their industrial uses to more resident and staff friendly appearances. I’ve looked, I’ve asked, and no one seems to be able to define the quintessential DUMBO façade to be preserved.

I took another look at the proposed district map. Again, it does not encompass the Dock street development space, it does not enclose either of the two large open Watchtower properties, nor any of the smaller Watchtower properties. Please show me how landmarking will prevent or restrict development on these properties and I’ll withdraw that statement.

Landmarking isn’t a panacaea. As the district is currently proposed, it’s a massive gift to the largest property owners in DUMBO in the form of immediate increased property values.

If it were up to me, I’d restrict development from Dock St. to the Navy Yard, put in height restrictions so that no new development (including “cabanas”) can exceed the height of the bridge deck, and require a set aside of any residential space for affordable housing. And I’d freeze zoning where it is today, no conversions from commercial to residential.

But that’s just me.

But you’ve given me an idea. Other than comments here or posts on my blog, I hadn’t thought of taking an actual, meaningful public position against the landmark district, perhaps I should.

Ooh, snap. Any joker with a web browser can find out my identity, it isn’t hard (I’ve been signing comments here, brownstoner, and at BrooklynHeights blog with my initials, and have been signing posts to Usenet and the web with them for decades). I have nothing to do with New York real estate. I own a condo in DUMBO and previously owned in Brooklyn Heights. I’ve lived in Brooklyn for seven years, and NYC for ten. So, who are you?

I don’t know where I stand on landmarking. I’m concerned that landmarking has become more about blocking development, instead of historic preservation. Until the recent real estate boom, there were maybe a dozen homes in North Brooklyn Heights which had had no maintenance for years and were left in disrepair. There’s no requirement to preserve or maintain anything in an landmark district, only the ability to block changes.

I’m concerned that landmark districts tend to push out commerical business by increasing costs. Again, in the North Heights recently we had a long time children’s clothing shop forced to close so that the owner could convert the storefront to an apartment. The landmark premium is so enticing that owners of commercial space would rather sit on it empty for years holding out for that whale of a tenant who’d pay Manhattan style rents, than cut the rent (look at the number of vacant spaces on Henry Street between Clark and Cranberry).

Landmarking pushes out lower income tenants, either through increasing rents, or through rental-to-condo conversions.

Aside from being snarky, I’ve reviewed my comments (btw, that must have taken some effort DDF) and don’t see where I was misleading.

Landmarking preserves the architecture of a designated area by integrating the LPC into the DOB permitting process. It does not aim to preserve the specific cultural makeup of an area. It does not protect tenants (commercial or residential) from evictions for the process of conversions. It doesn’t even necessarily prevent development, it just requires LPC approval. The LPC’s sense of what’s historically relevant can be seen by walking around Brooklyn Heights and seeing the “new” (since the 60s) developments. The train comment may have been snarky, but what does it mean to “preserve” the look of the 1900s building fronts when they’ve all been converted from their industrial uses to more resident and staff friendly appearances. I’ve looked, I’ve asked, and no one seems to be able to define the quintessential DUMBO façade to be preserved.

I took another look at the proposed district map. Again, it does not encompass the Dock street development space, it does not enclose either of the two large open Watchtower properties, nor any of the smaller Watchtower properties. Please show me how landmarking will prevent or restrict development on these properties and I’ll withdraw that statement.

Landmarking isn’t a panacaea. As the district is currently proposed, it’s a massive gift to the largest property owners in DUMBO in the form of immediate increased property values.

If it were up to me, I’d restrict development from Dock St. to the Navy Yard, put in height restrictions so that no new development (including “cabanas”) can exceed the height of the bridge deck, and require a set aside of any residential space for affordable housing. And I’d freeze zoning where it is today, no conversions from commercial to residential.

But that’s just me.

But you’ve given me an idea. Other than comments here or posts on my blog, I hadn’t thought of taking an actual, meaningful public position against the landmark district, perhaps I should.

My understanding is that the district does not encompass the Dock St. development site because this was formerly a low garage and the Nova Clutch Building – neither of which were viewed to be significant enough to preserve by the LPC. Additionally, the Watchtower buildings have had many changes to them already , so perhaps they were not included for the same reason – or maybe it is because they lie on the other side of the BQE and seemed too removed from the proposed area. There is a building on Bridge Street, #53, that was to be included in the designated area, but then the developer (Josh Guttman) made so many changes to the exterior, including the addition of several stories on the top, that it was removed from the propose district by LPC.
I agree with you about the changes you would impose, given your druthers. However, I do not agree with you that landmarking would be as restrictive and limiting as you envision. I cannot explain why the Northern Heights commercial spaces seemed to wither – perhaps this would have happened anyway given its proximity to the BQE and Brooklyn Bridge Ramps whether the area was landmarked in the 1960s or not. I, for one, am grateful it was landmarked as it is so beautiful and such a treasure – we are so lucky this lovely area was not converted into something awful – like say, Chambers Street in Manhattan, or the Fulton Mall area in downown Brooklyn.

Lets look at another area – SoHo. Robert Moses wanted to plow over this horrible, run down industrial area that was rampant with crime and derelict, dangerous buildings. But grass roots community groups objected. It languished through much of the Eighties, many buildings were in disrepair – one might have argued that preservation ( it was landmarked in 1973) wasn’t working – but Holy Cow, look at it now!

I think landmarking has only one drawback – that you sometimes have to spend more money to repair the exterior of the building. But in my mind, that cost is well justified in exchange for the aesthetic beauty we can all enjoy and which remains for future generations.

My understanding is that the district does not encompass the Dock St. development site because this was formerly a low garage and the Nova Clutch Building – neither of which were viewed to be significant enough to preserve by the LPC. Additionally, the Watchtower buildings have had many changes to them already , so perhaps they were not included for the same reason – or maybe it is because they lie on the other side of the BQE and seemed too removed from the proposed area. There is a building on Bridge Street, #53, that was to be included in the designated area, but then the developer (Josh Guttman) made so many changes to the exterior, including the addition of several stories on the top, that it was removed from the propose district by LPC.
I agree with you about the changes you would impose, given your druthers. However, I do not agree with you that landmarking would be as restrictive and limiting as you envision. I cannot explain why the Northern Heights commercial spaces seemed to wither – perhaps this would have happened anyway given its proximity to the BQE and Brooklyn Bridge Ramps whether the area was landmarked in the 1960s or not. I, for one, am grateful it was landmarked as it is so beautiful and such a treasure – we are so lucky this lovely area was not converted into something awful – like say, Chambers Street in Manhattan, or the Fulton Mall area in downown Brooklyn.

Lets look at another area – SoHo. Robert Moses wanted to plow over this horrible, run down industrial area that was rampant with crime and derelict, dangerous buildings. But grass roots community groups objected. It languished through much of the Eighties, many buildings were in disrepair – one might have argued that preservation ( it was landmarked in 1973) wasn’t working – but Holy Cow, look at it now!

I think landmarking has only one drawback – that you sometimes have to spend more money to repair the exterior of the building. But in my mind, that cost is well justified in exchange for the aesthetic beauty we can all enjoy and which remains for future generations.

The two Watchtower properties I’m referring to are the empty lots at York & Front and the block-long empty lot between Jay and Bridge on Front. It may seem futile to include these in a landmark district but by doing so the LPC could control any future uses of the lots if/when Watchtower sold them.

The two Watchtower properties I’m referring to are the empty lots at York & Front and the block-long empty lot between Jay and Bridge on Front. It may seem futile to include these in a landmark district but by doing so the LPC could control any future uses of the lots if/when Watchtower sold them.

What is a landmark?
A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.
Landmarks are not always buildings. A landmark may be a bridge, a park, a water tower, a pier, a cemetery, a building lobby, a sidewalk clock, a fence, or even a tree. A property or object is eligible for landmark status when at least part of it is thirty years old or older.

Why is it important to designate and protect landmarks and historic districts?
As the Landmarks Law states, protection of these resources serves the following purposes:
1. Safeguarding the city’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage;
2. Helping to stabilize and improve property values in historic districts;
3. Encouraging civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
4. Protecting and enhancing the city’s attractions for tourists, thereby benefitting business and industry;
5. Strengthening the city’s economy; and
6. Promoting the use of landmarks for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the city.

What types of designations can the Commission make?
There are three types of landmarks: individual (exterior) landmarks, interior landmarks, and scenic landmarks. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may also designate areas of the city as historic districts.

4. An historic district is an area of the city designated by the Landmarks Commission that represents at least one period or style of architecture typical of one or more areas in the city’s history; as a result, the district has a distinct “sense of place.” Fort Greene, Greenwich Village, Mott Haven, and SoHo are examples of sections of the city that contain historic districts.
___________________________________________
The LPC does not designate empty lots – they are A)not over 30 years old & B) have nothing worthy of preserving.

You say you own a condo – is it in 70 Washington? So your view of the Brooklyn Bridge is over the empty lot at Front & York and over the former Nova Clutch site? So would you support landmarking if it ensured your personal view would be protected?

What is a landmark?
A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.
Landmarks are not always buildings. A landmark may be a bridge, a park, a water tower, a pier, a cemetery, a building lobby, a sidewalk clock, a fence, or even a tree. A property or object is eligible for landmark status when at least part of it is thirty years old or older.

Why is it important to designate and protect landmarks and historic districts?
As the Landmarks Law states, protection of these resources serves the following purposes:
1. Safeguarding the city’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage;
2. Helping to stabilize and improve property values in historic districts;
3. Encouraging civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
4. Protecting and enhancing the city’s attractions for tourists, thereby benefitting business and industry;
5. Strengthening the city’s economy; and
6. Promoting the use of landmarks for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the city.

What types of designations can the Commission make?
There are three types of landmarks: individual (exterior) landmarks, interior landmarks, and scenic landmarks. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may also designate areas of the city as historic districts.

4. An historic district is an area of the city designated by the Landmarks Commission that represents at least one period or style of architecture typical of one or more areas in the city’s history; as a result, the district has a distinct “sense of place.” Fort Greene, Greenwich Village, Mott Haven, and SoHo are examples of sections of the city that contain historic districts.
___________________________________________
The LPC does not designate empty lots – they are A)not over 30 years old & B) have nothing worthy of preserving.

You say you own a condo – is it in 70 Washington? So your view of the Brooklyn Bridge is over the empty lot at Front & York and over the former Nova Clutch site? So would you support landmarking if it ensured your personal view would be protected?

The only reason it has not happened already is that it is not, nor will it ever be, legally possible. The floor plates are too large for residential conversion. So, put that worry to rest. By the way, 20 Jay Street can never be converted either for the same reason.

The only reason it has not happened already is that it is not, nor will it ever be, legally possible. The floor plates are too large for residential conversion. So, put that worry to rest. By the way, 20 Jay Street can never be converted either for the same reason.